AAA game sales are good among teens, but social game interest is waning.

In spite of a lot of bellyaching surrounding the rise of social and causal gaming, odds are that if you're a core gamer, you've dabbled in it at one point or another - unless you're a teenager, that is. In spite of cheap, easily accessible casual games, the high cost of AAA titles, and the ability to finally play something with their moms, teens - especially boys - are logging less and less time on the social sphere while their console play remains constant.

Piper Jaffray, an analyst firm that specializes in investment banking, surveyed almost 8,000 high school students to determine their gaming habits. Since earlier in 2012, console gaming among teens has remained relatively consistent. While the console market itself has been losing ground over the last few months, the spending and playing habits of teenage boys (and, to a lesser extent, teenage girls) have not reflected these changes. Meanwhile, online social games used to attract 25.3% of teenage gamers, but now interest only 17.4% of them - roughly an 8% decline in the space of less than a year.

Of course, it's not all doom and gloom. 53.3% of teens have stated that they're ready to embrace digital downloads on their consoles of choice, which means that many younger gamers feel less dependent on the traditional brick-and-mortar retail system. Developers still have a devoted teen audience, but perhaps these players are best served by traditional titles. Suddenly, that Dead Space 2 ad campaign makes a whole lot more sense in retrospect.

Of course, it's not all doom and gloom. 53.3% of teens have stated that they're ready to embrace digital downloads on their consoles of choice, which means that many younger gamers feel less dependent on the traditional brick-and-mortar retail system.

That...That IS the most gloomy part of the article, though!

Over 50% of teens are perfectly alright with trusting Microsoft/Nintendo/Sony with their games as opposed to the classic disc or cartridge model that lets you loan it to friends (or sell it to others). And that's a damn shame.

chadachada123:That...That IS the most gloomy part of the article, though!

Over 50% of teens are perfectly alright with trusting Microsoft/Nintendo/Sony with their games as opposed to the classic disc or cartridge model that lets you loan it to friends (or sell it to others). And that's a damn shame.

To be honest, better than rely on shitty stores that find it perfectly OK to dictate differences in release dates across the world (a little pissed that 4 games I'm getting this week are already out in the US since tuesday and I have to wat up to the weekend in 2 cases and friday the others).

chadachada123:That...That IS the most gloomy part of the article, though!

Over 50% of teens are perfectly alright with trusting Microsoft/Nintendo/Sony with their games as opposed to the classic disc or cartridge model that lets you loan it to friends (or sell it to others). And that's a damn shame.

To be honest, better than rely on shitty stores that find it perfectly OK to dictate differences in release dates across the world (a little pissed that 4 games I'm getting this week are already out in the US since tuesday and I have to wat up to the weekend in 2 cases and friday the others).

...What do you mean? The vast majority of release dates are decided by the publisher. You'd get the exact same thing with digital downloads if the publisher wanted (and has done, at least in respect to DLC).

Edit: I've since been proven wrong by both the quoted person and another person. I am incorrect in this post.

Of course, it's not all doom and gloom. 53.3% of teens have stated that they're ready to embrace digital downloads on their consoles of choice, which means that many younger gamers feel less dependent on the traditional brick-and-mortar retail system.

That...That IS the most gloomy part of the article, though!

Over 50% of teens are perfectly alright with trusting Microsoft/Nintendo/Sony with their games as opposed to the classic disc or cartridge model that lets you loan it to friends (or sell it to others). And that's a damn shame.

Part of that choice could be growing up with digital distribution, another part could be the age restrictions which they don't want their parents to know about. Both apply to me.

Consoles that REQUIRE an internet connection is a bad thing, and that's where it's headed. Consoles have always been my "fallback" device of choice. So much for that. If the PC ain't available, guess it's checkers time.

Misleading article title. The study shows that they prefer AAA games, not console games. Huge difference. Plenty of AAA games are on PC, and plenty of social games are on consoles. Angry Birds Trilogy, anyone?

Of course, it's not all doom and gloom. 53.3% of teens have stated that they're ready to embrace digital downloads on their consoles of choice, which means that many younger gamers feel less dependent on the traditional brick-and-mortar retail system.

That...That IS the most gloomy part of the article, though!

Over 50% of teens are perfectly alright with trusting Microsoft/Nintendo/Sony with their games as opposed to the classic disc or cartridge model that lets you loan it to friends (or sell it to others). And that's a damn shame.

I'm not a teen, but I'm excited for games to go digital. As long as they operate like my current digital games (ie - I don't need to be online to play them), I see no problems here.

I am disheartened that the experience of bringing a game over to a friend's house to have a gaming session is near extinct, but let's be honest. Games haven't been utilizing local multi-player for quite some time now.

...What do you mean? The vast majority of release dates are decided by the publisher. You'd get the exact same thing with digital downloads if the publisher wanted (and has done, at least in respect to DLC).

Actually, the difference in release dates is an old pre-internet growth bullshit created by differences in US and Europe based on spending habits. In Us the assumption is that people get their paychecks on tuesdays and thus have more money in the pocket and are more willing to spend it (so new games release on tuesdays) while in Europe they somehow deduced that the spending is most frequent on Fridays (as in "I need something to do for the weekend, why not go out and buy a game on the way home).

In this case the people who are the middleman actually had the most influence (as in: retailers). The retailer actually do hold a lot of power over the publishers (stoopid reliance) and so DD has to suck up to (guess how happy GS would be if we Europeans would be able to get Dishonored and XCom on Steam since yesterday while everyone who wants a physical copy has to wait until friday?).

And the final question: If the publisher really had the total freedom to choose between a worldwide launch or regional launch where the piracy rate outside of the first reagon skyrockets (Dishonored already has a cracked XBox version and of course PC version, XCom as well. If I would not have any kind of standards I could be playing those by now) which one would they prefer?

So yes, I have to wait 3-4 days for Dishonored, XCom and both Pokemon games because publishers don't want to piss off ShitStop and other highstreet retailer.

Oh, not only that. But I also am allowed to enjoy watching a popup every now and then disclaiming that my buddy is playing Dishonored now. Or XCom...

I can understand that. I'm not a teen but I prefer consoles for budget reasons. Having a PC might be better for a plethora of reasons but they just require you to be computer savvy and a lot of money to buy top notch equipment.Not only that but your computer turns obsolete after a couple of years. Yeah, a console does too but I'd rather spend, I don't know, 400 bucks on a console and be done with it than spend over $1000 on a console that requires a lot more maintenance.

Beautiful End:I can understand that. I'm not a teen but I prefer consoles for budget reasons. Having a PC might be better for a plethora of reasons but they just require you to be computer savvy and a lot of money to buy top notch equipment.Not only that but your computer turns obsolete after a couple of years. Yeah, a console does too but I'd rather spend, I don't know, 400 bucks on a console and be done with it than spend over $1000 on a console that requires a lot more maintenance.

Did you read the article or just the title? The article was about AAA games being more popular amongst teenagers than social games. Not teenagers preferring consoles over PC (which should be apparent to anyone, really.)

Of course, it's not all doom and gloom. 53.3% of teens have stated that they're ready to embrace digital downloads on their consoles of choice, which means that many younger gamers feel less dependent on the traditional brick-and-mortar retail system.

That...That IS the most gloomy part of the article, though!

Over 50% of teens are perfectly alright with trusting Microsoft/Nintendo/Sony with their games as opposed to the classic disc or cartridge model that lets you loan it to friends (or sell it to others). And that's a damn shame.

Well knowing some average teenagers some of them simply dont take care of thier game discs.

Therefore they eventually get lost or ruined.

Therefore taking them out of the equation is a good thing for them even if they dont understand th legal and property implications like we do.

I want to know what percentage of gamers this makes up? Last time I checked the numbers it was 18% of gamers were under the age of 18. How many of that group were over the age of 12?, Still less than 10%, who care what opinions a small minority of gamers have?

Beautiful End:I can understand that. I'm not a teen but I prefer consoles for budget reasons. Having a PC might be better for a plethora of reasons but they just require you to be computer savvy and a lot of money to buy top notch equipment.Not only that but your computer turns obsolete after a couple of years. Yeah, a console does too but I'd rather spend, I don't know, 400 bucks on a console and be done with it than spend over $1000 on a console that requires a lot more maintenance.

just out of curiosity do you sell all your games again to buy used games?because if not the fact that new PC games are cheaper means you will most likely end up paying less, assuming you buy a lot of games(since your 1000$ hardware budget will last you through an entire generation of consoles).i never got the price argument, sure the initial investment is higher and setting the whole thing up takes longer but if you buy a lot of games that evens out after the few years. and that's not even considering picking up games during steam sales.

OT: yeah title is misleading. and this shows how stupid all those shitstorms about social games were back in the day. like the guitar heroes before them they cam, made money, over saturated the market because the morons running publishers don't seem to understand supply and demand and went the way of the dodo.

Not only that but your computer turns obsolete after a couple of years. Yeah, a console does too but I'd rather spend, I don't know, 400 bucks on a console and be done with it than spend over $1000 on a console that requires a lot more maintenance.

I had the same PC for six years, and it used to cost me $300. It still playes almost everything, though sometimes I have to tone down the graphics settings until they look almost as ugly as on a console.

Why, this is easy to explain. Games have become shittier over time, so teens tried cost free (or minimum cost) alternatives. They turned out to be shitty, too. So they turned back to the shit they know. Voilá

I'd play more Facebook games if they weren't almost all crap. I've been gaming for around 24 years, and the only FB games I somewhat enjoy are Tetris Battle, You Don't Know Jack and Risk: Factions, all of which are based on full PC/console games. Once I realized that 'Ville games and the like have no negative consequences, and therefore have no challenge, choices became meaningless. I enjoy SimCity, but in the FB version a terribly planned city will function just as well as a meticulously tweaked one, just not grow as fast. Why -not- put an elementary school next to a prison? FB-Sims don't care!

Also, what the hell are digital downloads? Unless you have a device that transfers audio from radio stations onto a vinyl record, there's only one kind of download.

Beautiful End:I can understand that. I'm not a teen but I prefer consoles for budget reasons. Having a PC might be better for a plethora of reasons but they just require you to be computer savvy and a lot of money to buy top notch equipment.Not only that but your computer turns obsolete after a couple of years. Yeah, a console does too but I'd rather spend, I don't know, 400 bucks on a console and be done with it than spend over $1000 on a console that requires a lot more maintenance.

just out of curiosity do you sell all your games again to buy used games?because if not the fact that new PC games are cheaper means you will most likely end up paying less, assuming you buy a lot of games(since your 1000$ hardware budget will last you through an entire generation of consoles).i never got the price argument, sure the initial investment is higher and setting the whole thing up takes longer but if you buy a lot of games that evens out after the few years. and that's not even considering picking up games during steam sales.

No, I like to keep my games, except if they really suck. If that's the case, I'll dispose of them almost immediately.But at the same time, I don't buy that many games anymore. I'd say I buy...around 5 per year? And that's only when stores have that Buy 2, get 1 free promotion. I rarely have time to play so it evens out.Also, I can rent any new release game for free for 4 days. So I see what you're trying to say. it makes sense. But in my case, a console is more affordable.

Maybe its because im OLD school, but I still lend and trade my console games with friends when I can, I even take games my friends dont have to their house to play 2 player. On my PC I play games with my friends typically online, I have a couple computers at my house and will have friends over to do some lan play, but nothing like it was 10 years ago.

I personally prefer sitting in the same room/ house with friends playing because you get more interaction than just a voice.

Of course gamers are supporting AAA games. As much as the internet likes to vocalize the stale progress of innovation from the big developers and publishers, even less can be found in the social gaming space.

...What do you mean? The vast majority of release dates are decided by the publisher. You'd get the exact same thing with digital downloads if the publisher wanted (and has done, at least in respect to DLC).

Actually, the difference in release dates is an old pre-internet growth bullshit created by differences in US and Europe based on spending habits. In Us the assumption is that people get their paychecks on tuesdays and thus have more money in the pocket and are more willing to spend it (so new games release on tuesdays) while in Europe they somehow deduced that the spending is most frequent on Fridays (as in "I need something to do for the weekend, why not go out and buy a game on the way home).

In this case the people who are the middleman actually had the most influence (as in: retailers). The retailer actually do hold a lot of power over the publishers (stoopid reliance) and so DD has to suck up to (guess how happy GS would be if we Europeans would be able to get Dishonored and XCom on Steam since yesterday while everyone who wants a physical copy has to wait until friday?).

And the final question: If the publisher really had the total freedom to choose between a worldwide launch or regional launch where the piracy rate outside of the first reagon skyrockets (Dishonored already has a cracked XBox version and of course PC version, XCom as well. If I would not have any kind of standards I could be playing those by now) which one would they prefer?

So yes, I have to wait 3-4 days for Dishonored, XCom and both Pokemon games because publishers don't want to piss off ShitStop and other highstreet retailer.

Oh, not only that. But I also am allowed to enjoy watching a popup every now and then disclaiming that my buddy is playing Dishonored now. Or XCom...

Huh, fair enough.

I still prefer discs/cartridges for non-PC playing, but damn, I've rarely admitted this: I was told in respect to retail sales. I never knew or thought about it. I'm...I'm never wrong. I need to think about this.

Not only that but your computer turns obsolete after a couple of years. Yeah, a console does too but I'd rather spend, I don't know, 400 bucks on a console and be done with it than spend over $1000 on a console that requires a lot more maintenance.

I had the same PC for six years, and it used to cost me $300. It still playes almost everything, though sometimes I have to tone down the graphics settings until they look almost as ugly as on a console.

On topic: It figures. Teenagers are dumb, and AAA games are dumb too.

How on earth did my name end up on that quote? I didn't say that, that was Beautiful End.

chadachada123:That...That IS the most gloomy part of the article, though!

Over 50% of teens are perfectly alright with trusting Microsoft/Nintendo/Sony with their games as opposed to the classic disc or cartridge model that lets you loan it to friends (or sell it to others). And that's a damn shame.

To be honest, better than rely on shitty stores that find it perfectly OK to dictate differences in release dates across the world (a little pissed that 4 games I'm getting this week are already out in the US since tuesday and I have to wat up to the weekend in 2 cases and friday the others).

...What do you mean? The vast majority of release dates are decided by the publisher. You'd get the exact same thing with digital downloads if the publisher wanted (and has done, at least in respect to DLC).

Not true. Retail outlets are the ones who set dates for release in most instances. They strong-arm publishers into choosing a date that suits them or they don't carry the game. That's why different regions have different release dates. TB has gone over this a few times in his Mailboxes, I believe.

As far as the article goes, as a teenager (18) I've found myself spending less and less time on my consoles and spending way more time playing on my PC. But whatever.

Call of Duty has choice and meaning? It's just a very pretty skinner box.

I'd play more Facebook games if they weren't almost all crap. I've been gaming for around 24 years, and the only FB games I somewhat enjoy are Tetris Battle, You Don't Know Jack and Risk: Factions, all of which are based on full PC/console games. Once I realized that 'Ville games and the like have no negative consequences, and therefore have no challenge, choices became meaningless. I enjoy SimCity, but in the FB version a terribly planned city will function just as well as a meticulously tweaked one, just not grow as fast. Why -not- put an elementary school next to a prison? FB-Sims don't care!

Also, what the hell are digital downloads? Unless you have a device that transfers audio from radio stations onto a vinyl record, there's only one kind of download.

I have a device that transfers radio frequency signals onto a needle and paper, so I guess that might be considered an analog download.

I have no idea why they phrase digital download is written that way. It is just a download.

Baldr:I want to know what percentage of gamers this makes up? Last time I checked the numbers it was 18% of gamers were under the age of 18. How many of that group were over the age of 12?, Still less than 10%, who care what opinions a small minority of gamers have?

Of course, it's not all doom and gloom. 53.3% of teens have stated that they're ready to embrace digital downloads on their consoles of choice, which means that many younger gamers feel less dependent on the traditional brick-and-mortar retail system.

That...That IS the most gloomy part of the article, though!

Over 50% of teens are perfectly alright with trusting Microsoft/Nintendo/Sony with their games as opposed to the classic disc or cartridge model that lets you loan it to friends (or sell it to others). And that's a damn shame.

To be honest, better than rely on shitty stores that find it perfectly OK to dictate differences in release dates across the world (a little pissed that 4 games I'm getting this week are already out in the US since tuesday and I have to wat up to the weekend in 2 cases and friday the others).

Well first off, it's not the stores that dictate release dates. More importantly, though, hasn't this happened with digital games as well? I'm pretty sure it's becoming more common, so you're basically putting off the problem at best. And adding in new region locking procedures.

If there wasn't consoles, I would never have gotten into gaming. I still wouldn't play games if they only came on computer.

Computers only seem to have the most boring games around.

I don't care how popular games on computers are; RTS's have nothing compelling or relate-able, MMO's are doing 3 un-involving things over and over (by CLICKING, cause honestly what could be more engaging/stimulating than that?) and shooters are only doing ONE thing over and over.

Thank Christ somebody came up with the idea to make computers just for games and truly exploring what can be done with the ingenuity of the human mind

Not true. Retail outlets are the ones who set dates for release in most instances. They strong-arm publishers into choosing a date that suits them or they don't carry the game. That's why different regions have different release dates. TB has gone over this a few times in his Mailboxes, I believe.

As far as the article goes, as a teenager (18) I've found myself spending less and less time on my consoles and spending way more time playing on my PC. But whatever.

I guess that's called growing up?

Haha seriously though, I grew up on consoles through the first 3 gens but once I graduated high school and got my very first own PC (with help from a more tech savvy friend) I switched primarily to PC gaming. Only kept a PS2 around and later a Wii for JRPG's and Mario/Zelda/Metroid.

Zachary Amaranth:Well first off, it's not the stores that dictate release dates. More importantly, though, hasn't this happened with digital games as well? I'm pretty sure it's becoming more common, so you're basically putting off the problem at best. And adding in new region locking procedures. So...Ummm...Yay?

As I previously posted:

SL33TBL1ND:Not true. Retail outlets are the ones who set dates for release in most instances. They strong-arm publishers into choosing a date that suits them or they don't carry the game. That's why different regions have different release dates. TB has gone over this a few times in his Mailboxes, I believe.

Basically, publishers give retail outlets a specific date which they can't sell before. What usually happens, though, is that retail outlets hold onto them until their designated "new-release" day. In the UK that's on a Friday usually and in the US it's usually a Tuesday. These retailers then tell publishers to restrict digital downloads to their dates for their respective region, or they refuse to sell the games.

As retail becomes less relevant, this practice will probably die out because publishers don't have to deal with retailers.

Dark wolverine:If there wasn't consoles, I would never have gotten into gaming. I still wouldn't play games if they only came on computer.

Computers only seem to have the most boring games around.

I don't care how popular games on computers are; RTS's have nothing compelling or relate-able, MMO's are doing 3 un-involving things over and over (by CLICKING, cause honestly what could be more engaging/stimulating than that?) and shooters are only doing ONE thing over and over.

Thank Christ somebody came up with the idea to make computers just for games and truly exploring what can be done with the ingenuity of the human mind